![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > +/* > > + * lockdep: port->lock is initialized in two places, but we > > + * want only one lock-type: > > + */ > > +static struct lockdep_type_key port_lock_key; > > + > > /** > > * uart_set_options - setup the serial console parameters > > * @port: pointer to the serial ports uart_port structure > > @@ -1869,7 +1875,7 @@ uart_set_options(struct uart_port *port, > > * Ensure that the serial console lock is initialised > > * early. > > */ > > - spin_lock_init(&port->lock); > > + spin_lock_init_key(&port->lock, &port_lock_key); > > > > memset(&termios, 0, sizeof(struct termios)); > > > > @@ -2255,7 +2261,7 @@ int uart_add_one_port(struct uart_driver > > * initialised. > > */ > > if (!(uart_console(port) && (port->cons->flags & CON_ENABLED))) > > - spin_lock_init(&port->lock); > > + spin_lock_init_key(&port->lock, &port_lock_key); > > > > uart_configure_port(drv, state, port); > > > > Is there a cleaner way of doing this? > > Perhaps write a new helper function which initialises the spinlock, > call that? Rather than open-coding lockdep stuff? yes, we can do that too - but that would have an effect to non-lockdep kernels too. Also, the initialization of the 'port' seems a bit twisted here, already initialized and not-yet-initialized ports can be passed in to uard_add_one_port(). So i did not want to touch the structure of the code - hence the open-coded solution. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-06-23 11:57 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||